ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2018

RANJAN RAMESH DOSHI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-27(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1071/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the assessee paid VAT on these purchases. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8%.

TEMPLETON EMERGING MARKETS INVESTMENT TRUST PLC,MUMBAI vs ASST DIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1418/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

PURKHARAM S. CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX WARD-19(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 2013/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard is bad in law. The appellate authority is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs M/S.ITD CEMINDIA JV, MUMBAI

ITA 2045/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. JAIN,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2048/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the profit rate of 12.5% confirmed by the CIT(A) on bogus purchases was on the higher side. The AO was directed to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8% on the bogus purchases.

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. JAIN,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2049/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the profit rate of 12.5% confirmed by the CIT(A) on bogus purchases was on the higher side. The AO was directed to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8% on the bogus purchases.

M/S. DEWAN REALTORS PVT. LTD.,THANE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), THANE

ITA 2064/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking in proper consideration of facts. Therefore, the order was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

ACIT 2(3)-2, MUMBAI vs SHAKUN GASES P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2067/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which sets monetary limits for appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed.

ADDL CIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs SJS TRADING AND HOLDING COMPANY P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2068/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed.

TEJRAJ MANROOP CHAND TAK,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 18(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2113/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found the estimated profit rate of 12.5% to be on the higher side for the assessee's business. Therefore, it directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases.

V-TEX CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2118/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to furnish required details. However, considering the Revenue's agreement for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

ABHIMANYU SEMLANI,MUMBAI vs ITO 32(1)(1) NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

ITA 2498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Remanded

The tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is bad in law. The appellate authority is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.

SUKESHAN EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KALYAN

ITA 2544/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the corresponding sales were not doubted, and payments were made by cheque. Therefore, a reasonable profit should be estimated on these bogus purchases.

SUKESHAN EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KALYAN

ITA 2545/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the corresponding sales were not doubted, and payments were made by cheque. Therefore, a reasonable profit should be estimated on these bogus purchases.

ACIT CENT. CIR. 3(2), CENT. RANGE - 3, MUMBAI vs SHRI NITIN M. SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 2863/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were unsustainable after a search action, as Section 271AAA was the appropriate provision. Sub-clause 3 of Section 271AAA explicitly prohibits penalties under Section 271(1)(c) in such cases.

LEH HOLDINGS P. LTD,AHEMEDABAD vs ITO 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3655/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessees were non-banking financial institutions, their interest income should be treated as business income, allowing related administrative and salary expenses. However, disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to tax-free income were upheld.

LEH HOLDINGS P. LTD,AHEMEDABAD vs DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3656/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessees were non-banking financial institutions, their interest income should be treated as business income, allowing related administrative and salary expenses. However, disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to tax-free income were upheld.

KARGIL HOLDINGS P. LTD,AHEMEDABAD vs ITO 3(2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3657/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessees were non-banking financial institutions, their interest income should be treated as business income, allowing related administrative and salary expenses. However, disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to tax-free income were upheld.

KARGIL HOLDINGS P. LTD,AHEMEDABAD vs DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3658/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessees were non-banking financial institutions, their interest income should be treated as business income, allowing related administrative and salary expenses. However, disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to tax-free income were upheld.

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs KAMLESH MANOHAR KANUGO, MUMBAI

ITA 3970/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

IVP LTD,MUMBAI vs ITO 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4417/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance solely on an internet website for determining ALV without further inquiry was not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the deemed rent as per the Municipal rateable value.

DCIT CENT. CIR. -6(4), MUMBAI vs FIRESTONE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 5304/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the TPO to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. It found that the TPO's insistence on a specific benchmarking method was misconceived and impractical, and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was well-reasoned.

DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs KIRAN GEMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5626/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the TPO to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. It found that the TPO's insistence on a specific benchmarking method was misconceived and impractical, and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was well-reasoned.

DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs KARP IMPEX P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5627/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the TPO to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. It found that the TPO's insistence on a specific benchmarking method was misconceived and impractical, and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was well-reasoned.

DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs INTERJWEL P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5628/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the TPO to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. It found that the TPO's insistence on a specific benchmarking method was misconceived and impractical, and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was well-reasoned.